Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
988 F.2d 1564 · 1993
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Holifield v. Reno (1997), Smart v. Ball State University (1996)
32 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · County of Washington v. Gunther · In re Disbarment of Sabiston · Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc. · Sullivan v. School Board of Pinellas County
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a plaintiff merely has to prove that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“There are two clauses of Title VII regarding retaliation. Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), provides protection against retaliation from employees who oppose unlawful empioyment practices committed by an employer and for employees who participate in Title VII proceedings: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment ... because he has opposed any practice and made an unlawful employment practice by this title, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this Title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The plaintiff relied on ... circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case. Admittedly, defendant’s counsel present ed convincing proof of non-diseriminato-ry reasons for each [employment action] and. defeated [the plaintiffs] claims on the merits; the cumulative effect of these employment actions and their timing, however, was sufficient to meet the plaintiffs initial burden. Accordingly, the retaliation claims were not frivolous and the district court abused its discretion in awarding fees ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Quintana v. Jenne
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.